<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Wednesday we posted news and specifics about the <br>
federal grant awards for the battery development <br>
for plug-in vehicles. We mistakenly said that <br>
these awards covered only the battery and related <br>
component industries. A more careful reading <br>
shows it in fact does include the DE-FOA-0000028 <br>
Transportation Electrification program. And now <br>
we have more to say -- much of it critical -- <br>
while we hope for an improved sequel.<br>
<br>
(Shortly after it goes out on email, this posting <br>
will also be viewable at <br>
<a href="http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html">http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html</a>
-- there <br>
you can add CalCars-News to your RSS feed.)<br>
<br>
As our partners, supporters and readers of <br>
CalCars-News know, we've been energetic fans of <br>
the DOE's new initiatives since they were <br>
announced. We promoted their availability <br>
broadly, pointed people to resources, advised <br>
people with questions, and brokered matches for a <br>
program whose theme was partnerships. We wrote <br>
letters of endorsement for applications by other <br>
organizations and companies. CalCars did not <br>
itself directly apply for a grant, but we were <br>
included as subawardees in several applications. <br>
That gave us a direct interest in how funds were allocated.<br>
<br>
In recent years, many small companies and <br>
organizations decided not to bother jumping <br>
through the many hoops for federal programs,. <br>
They cited time-consuming application and <br>
reporting forms. And they felt the playing field <br>
was not level: that small and independent players <br>
stood little chance against the well-connected <br>
big players on the inside track.<br>
<br>
This year, with Transparency and Accountability <br>
the stated principles for the recovery program, <br>
it looked like a brand-new story. The word went <br>
out broadly to companies and to the advocacy <br>
coalition that helped get us to the point when <br>
commercialization of plug-in vehicles is in view <br>
(more on that at end of message). Entrepreneurs <br>
and organizations participated enthusiastically <br>
and eagerly awaited the outcome.<br>
<br>
The results have been mixed -- while important <br>
and valuable projects were funded, we and others <br>
(see media quotes after our comments) have <br>
pointed out skews and notable omissions in the <br>
awards, and a "business as usual" cast of characters.<br>
<br>
In our posting, focused on the funds from the $2B <br>
first federal program for on battery, <br>
infrastructure and deployment, we noted that the <br>
bulk of the awards went to large established <br>
companies -- especially automakers and component <br>
suppliers. We have since heard from a number of <br>
smaller battery and automotive companies that <br>
feel their constituency was overlooked. One made <br>
the comparison to funding dinosaur land-line <br>
companies at the birth of the cell phone age.<br>
<br>
We now also reluctantly and with disappointment <br>
conclude that this characterization applies <br>
equally to the sections of the $378M second <br>
federal program focused on Vehicle Demonstration <br>
& Evaluation and Advanced Vehicle Drive Education.<br>
<br>
To take the area with which we are most familiar, <br>
education, the solicitation listed as a main goal <br>
"Educating consumers on the basics of advanced <br>
electric drive vehicles to increase consumer <br>
acceptance and market demand." What were the <br>
locations in which "the general public?" will be <br>
reached for this important objective? The <br>
responsibility falls to seven universities: three <br>
in Michigan plus four in Colorado, Indiana, <br>
Missouri, and West Virginia. "Project locations" <br>
are those five states plus Georgia and South <br>
Carolina. And for most of these programs, "the <br>
general public" is the last in a list of <br>
audiences including teachers, students, technicians and emergency responders.<br>
<br>
One reason we made our mistaken assumption <br>
yesterday was that the institutions that are now <br>
and have for years been at the center of the <br>
successful campaign to educate car owners and <br>
other consumers, public officials and private <br>
sector decision makers, journalists and industry <br>
analysts are entirely missing from the grantees. <br>
That includes CalCars and Plug In America, as <br>
well as many other energetic organizations like <br>
Friends of the Earth, Project Get Ready, regional <br>
plug-in coalitions and others listed at <br>
http//www.calcars.org/partners.html . (We haven't <br>
asked these organizations for permission to list <br>
them in this paragraph.) Also missing are <br>
utility- and automaker-sponsored outreach and educator efforts.<br>
<br>
Today, if we were asked, "are you happy about the <br>
results?" we'd say that while we appreciate the <br>
many worthwhile awards, we hope the Department of <br>
Energy hears from the many innovative companies <br>
and both traditional and grass-roots <br>
organizations who fell between the cracks. We <br>
hold out some hope that DOE will announce a <br>
second round in this program from unallocated <br>
recovery funds. If so, to convince those <br>
potential applicants that they may have better <br>
luck next time and it's worth their trouble to <br>
apply, objectives and evaluation criteria should <br>
better match their potential contributions.<br>
<br>
Here are a few media speculations about the winners and losers in these awards:<br>
<br>
WALL STREET JOURNAL: VC-Backed Companies Left In <br>
The Cold By DOE Battery Grants by Mara Lemos <br>
Stein <br>
<a
href="http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200908061602dowjonesdjonline000852">http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200908061602dowjonesdjonline000852</a><br>
<br>
Analysts and investors said the DOE seems to be <br>
playing safe it in its selection of 48 companies, <br>
picking big names and companies that plan to <br>
build plants in Michigan, the home of the ailing U.S. automobile
industry….<br>
"We weren't the only ones having the thought that <br>
the government was interested in filling the <br>
funding gap - it may be that they'll still do <br>
it," said Mark Mills, chairman of start-up <br>
International Battery Inc., which makes <br>
large-format lithium-ion batteries and cells and <br>
is building a facility in Allentown, Pa. "When <br>
you look at the list, what you see is that the <br>
DOE has made a cautious bet in the space by <br>
funding battery manufacturing essentially just by <br>
big companies." "The DOE has to address whether <br>
or not they are concerned that emerging <br>
technologies will mature and...whether they think <br>
innovation can only come out of big companies," <br>
said Mills. "We hope that the DOE decides that <br>
there may be follow-on to help entrepreneurs."….<br>
Analysts and investors said the DOE seems to be <br>
playing it safe in its selection of 48 companies, <br>
picking big names and companies that plan to <br>
build plants in Michigan. Only two venture-backed <br>
companies made the list, raising the question of <br>
whether this money will fill the private funding gap.<br>
<br>
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: 'Red' Kentucky loses out as <br>
energy grants go to battlegrounds By Halimah <br>
Abdullah <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/economy/story/73139.html">http://www.mcclatchydc.com/economy/story/73139.html</a><br>
<br>
Notably absent from the list was a high-profile <br>
bid by a consortium of 50 companies to build a <br>
new [$600 million] battery plant in Kentucky -- a <br>
reliably Republican state that is the nation's <br>
third largest producer of autos and whose senior <br>
senator is Senate Minority Leader Mitch <br>
McConnell. McConnell steadfastly opposed the <br>
stimulus legislation that created the car-battery <br>
program. Department of Energy officials said <br>
applications were judged on merit, not politics, <br>
and the Kentucky consortium's founder said many <br>
factors played into his group, known as NATTBatt, not getting a grant.<br>
<br>
SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES: State's battery <br>
companies get shafted <br>
<a
href="http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2009/08/states_battery_companies_get_shafted.html">http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2009/08/states_battery_companies_get_shafted.html</a><br>
Unfortunately for the Bay Area, and California as <br>
a whole, battery companies here got zilch. Jeff <br>
DePew, CEO of Imara, was worried when I <br>
interviewed him a couple weeks ago, that the <br>
already-established battery manufacturers -- not <br>
those producing the latest and greatest <br>
technologies -- would get the money. He said <br>
during that interview: "If they (the government) <br>
just invest in the ones that are big names and <br>
already incumbent, they'll be investing in first <br>
generation technology that may or may not be able <br>
to withstand the competition that will be coming <br>
form Asia. If they invest in more forward <br>
companies that have demonstrably better <br>
technology and better performance but maybe are <br>
not as connected or at the same level of <br>
development, I think that's what we need to look for."<br>
<br>
TO END WITH SOME GOOD NEWS: on Thursday GM <br>
announced its production commitment for what was <br>
going to be the Saturn Vue PHEV, now a Buick crossover, in 2011.<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>